Shipbucket

My main concern would be topweight.
I'm not sure a vertical magazine would fit, its too close to the aft engine room and the hull is narrowing at that point. I wonder if the SAM is a gizmo too far?

_________________
Hood's Worklist
English Electric Canberra FD
Interwar RN Capital Ships
Super-Darings
Never-Were British Aircraft

@Hood

I also think the russian volkov would be to huge and tall to fit the cruiser.
In the chinese system the missiles are stored diagonally (if there's no technical problem with that) between the launcher and the rear funnel.

_________________
"You can rape history, if you give her a child"
Alexandre Dumas

JE SUIS CHARLIE

while it is possible to store missiles diagonally, I cannot remember many occasions (if any) when this was done. structurally it creates an area that has no strength at all, so the entire installation has to be above the main deck and be in the superstructure. diagonal loaders exist (for example the Mk 10 GMLS) but the only diagonal storage I can think of is in missile submarines (halibut for example)

keep in mind that you are creating an all new system for what is basically a rebuild, with a relatively short service life. everything underneath the launcher would have to be changed (loader, launcher load position, storage, missile exchange, etc) and it would certainly be easier to build an horizontal magazine then a diagonal.

I agree with, IIRC, the opinions above, saying that this weapon on this hull might be going a bit far.

_________________
Drawings are credited with J.Scholtens
I ask of you to prove me wrong. Not say I am wrong, but prove it, because then I will have learned something new.
Shipbucket Wiki admin

@acelanceloet
My first idea was to store the SA-2 horizontally and load it diagonally but i didn't knew if it was possible.
The system is a attempt to design an indigenous SAM, it is fitted for trial on the only available warship big enough to accommodate it.

_________________
"You can rape history, if you give her a child"
Alexandre Dumas

JE SUIS CHARLIE

The other question I have is; what use is the SA-2 in defending this ship?
If you expect the enemy to be flying it at 50-60,000 feet then ok, but against the kind of threats (low-medium level ROCAF B-57s, USN A-3s, A-4s and RN Scimitars) I think only a decent amount of AAA can hope to pluck down these kinds of threats, unless you can craft some kind of lash-up low-level SAM (perhaps using IR-guided AAMs like the Atoll?).

_________________
Hood's Worklist
English Electric Canberra FD
Interwar RN Capital Ships
Super-Darings
Never-Were British Aircraft

@Hood

The chinese project was to protect their fleet against all sort of aerial threat.
Remember in 1949 the ship was under attack by "high altitude bombing runs by ROC B-24 bombers". Of course j guess what was intended as "hight altitude bombing" in 1949 is not the same in 1963, but it may still something feared by the PLA navy..........

For low altitude attack the AAA was increased by 50%.
do you think i should add an other type of AAA?

Nevertheless your idea of the Atoll is very interesting.
Especially because i've found something interesting while searching for data about the AAM:
"During the Second Taiwan Strait Crisis in 1958, the Republic of China's (Taiwan) F-86 Sabres faced the much higher performance, mainland Chinese PLAAF MiG-17s. The MiGs had speed, maneuverability and altitude advantages over the Sabres, allowing them to engage only when they desired, normally at advantageous times. In response, the US Navy rushed to modify 100 of the ROC's Sabres to fit the newly introduced AIM-9 Sidewinder missile, the latest model being the "B" version. These were introduced into combat for the first time on 24 September 1958, when a group of MiG-17s cruised past a flight of Sabres, only to find themselves under attack by missile fire. This was the first instance of guided missiles being used in air-to-air combat.[2]
On the 28th, a similar engagement resulted in one of the missiles becoming lodged in a MiG without exploding, allowing it to be removed. The Soviets later became aware that the Chinese had at least one Sidewinder, and after some wrangling, were able to convince the Chinese to send them one of the captured missiles."

So the chinese could have traded some technical assistance for the captured missiles, and use the reverse engineered K-13 to create a low-level SAM.....

_________________
"You can rape history, if you give her a child"
Alexandre Dumas

JE SUIS CHARLIE

Ok another entry

Built by India with help from the UK and USSR (not at the same time and not cooperating with each other )

To fill the need of protecting the India CV or surface battle groups the IN wanted a mostly AAW DDG, they are already building Leander types at the time so decided to go with a new class of County DDG based ships using the same steam engines (+ GTs) they decided that they would use Russian systems as armament due to the UK not being willing to hand over all the knowledge about radar and SAM systems for local production.

The result was the IDDG class (yes I need a nice name )


2 x twin SA-N-1 Goa surface to air missile launchers
1 x twin SS-N-3 Shaddock anti ship missiles
1 x twin 4.5'
4 x 30mm AK230
2 x Limbo (under flight deck)

What do you think and feel free to rip to shreds JSB

The interesting part of that story is that that Sidewinder became the genesis of all future Soviet and Chinese missile technology. As one Soviet scientist said, it was like a univerity of knowledge was opened up to them. So nuclear technology, tank technology, missile technology amongst other things were all technologies the Russians got from the Americans.

@Waritem
Technically speaking there is no particular need to store S-75-family missiles vertically. In this case it has probably more to do with the simplicity and size of whole installation (and amount of changes needed to make to the ship).
Another thing is that missiles used on Pr.70E were W-753 type, which were naval modification of land-based W-750-family specifically adapted for longer (than in the case of basic model) storage with fuel in tanks.
Since Your installation is supposed to be rather a look-alike, then it can be implied that it would be rather using "basic" W-750's. And here's one issue - their preparation was a horribly long and complicated process, and making of it on ship would necessitate huge changes to the superstructure.
Here's the article - unfortunately in Polish - about the process of preparation of W-755 missiles (S-75M Volkhov) for launch:
http://infowsparcie.net/wria/o_autorze/elab_rakiet.html

@JSB
If it's air defence ship, then why do You need P-5 launcher? P-15 would be enough - and frankly I'd ditch these too.
Another thing is that I'm not sure (but that depends on hull geometry) if You have enough space for the aft M-1 launcher (place where P-5 is seems more plausible).

Yes it's a look-alike.
I knew this need to store the fuel longer in the missile , so i thought that, maybe, keep them vertical could be a need for it.

So i see two solution:
- Study your excellent Polish site and design the spaces required to handle the process that it describe.
- Consider that chinese in a way or an other found also a way to navalise their missiles to store fuel longer.

I have to confess that i'm a bit more tempted by the second solution.................

_________________
"You can rape history, if you give her a child"
Alexandre Dumas

JE SUIS CHARLIE